:::I've tried it on a slightly modded version of Google chrome I sometimes use, and found the same problem. However, when I use the browsers Opera and Vivaldi, both of which are now Chromium based (but significantly edited), it shows fine. I can experiment with this further, later on. I'll try to find the time to spin up some VMs later, and try it on those. Those will offer a clean slate, so to speak, and therefor more pure results. --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 23:11, 5 August 2018 (EDT)

:::I've tried it on a slightly modded version of Google chrome I sometimes use, and found the same problem. However, when I use the browsers Opera and Vivaldi, both of which are now Chromium based (but significantly edited), it shows fine. I can experiment with this further, later on. I'll try to find the time to spin up some VMs later, and try it on those. Those will offer a clean slate, so to speak, and therefor more pure results. --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 23:11, 5 August 2018 (EDT)

+

+

==Deletion request==

+

Could you delete the redirect, [[Russiagate timeline 2018]] for me? Thanks. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 06:45, 11 August 2018 (EDT)

You archived way too much!

Please restore everything from "Is this article appropriate to cite?" onward. That material, particularly the last few sections, was extremely relevant to ongoing issues, especially discussions that I was involved in and want to comment on further. SamHB (talk) 19:15, 19 August 2017 (EDT)

Time to move on to other issues here, Sam. The world doesn't stop spinning to await resolution of endless debate about something. You can copy the debate from the archive and move it to the talk page for the relevant entry, but I encourage you to let it go and address new issues instead.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 19:19, 19 August 2017 (EDT)

Thank you for the page move of Eclipse. JDano (talk) 13:39, 20 August 2017 (EDT)

Move requests

Andy, would you please move these two articles and their corresponding talk pages:

The Essay does not mention any individual editor, and the article was started by User:Firestarter. I am open to feedback about the essay, but I believe it does a better job of exploring the tension between Donald Trump and the mainstream media. Some of the sources that 1990sguy has deleted were in fact mainstream media sources, but I believe it is necessary to refer to the mainstream media in the process of discussing the relationship between Donald Trump and the mainstream media. Other information was added to the essay to better explore some of the items raised in the current Mainstream media and Donald Trump article, including MS-13 and a false reporting of 2014 rape at the University of Virginia. The problem is that some of the writing in the article is not clear, and 1990sguy has resisted attempts to make the text more closely reflect the sources. I have generally stepped back from editing the current Mainstream media and Donald Trump article, but I believe a more accurate portrait of the current situation can be found in the essay. Perhaps interested readers will consider both. The essay contains 1990sguy's account of Charlottesville rather than what I had originially wrote, but as an essay, I will have the opporunity to revise it over time. The fact that 1990sguy wrote directly to you, rather than discuss the essay with me, shows how he is unwilling to collaborate with other editors. Many thanks, JDano (talk) 17:37, 4 September 2017 (EDT)

1) You did not name names at the top of your essay, but you are obviously criticizing me. You do this often.

2) Yes, Firestarter created the article, but that doesn't take away from the fact that I created most of the content. You are ignoring this and falsely implying that I did not make substantial edits to the article until a week ago.

3) You are unilaterally changing the article's tone and theme, and you are adding irrelevant content that gives the article a liberal pov tilt. I linked your edits, and I will do it again: [2] A some of your changes are meaningless (if it ain't broke, don't fix it), irrelevant (polling data, TIME Magazine cover), and a lot of it accepts the MSM's narrative of certain incidents (the Pheonix rally section). Honestly, I don't see why any good-faith person in their right mind would add the info that you did. Is approval rating data really relevant to the MSM and Trump? --1990'sguy (talk) 17:54, 4 September 2017 (EDT)

I am willing to discuss these three issues with you, but the place for that is on the essay talk page or my talk page. Thank you. JDano (talk) 18:23, 4 September 2017 (EDT)

Your edits are ridiculous. You think that a TIME magazine cover and approval rating data are somehow important to the article. They give the article a left-of-center tilt. Also, I have tried discussing things with you. I did it all the time with you, and I was actually better at going to the talk pages than you. However, many discussions with you (and other editors and you) show that you are unwilling to budge, to reconsider, or to meet in the middle. I have accepted many of your edits, even as I reverted some others (and I am referring to changes in single diffs and articles). Knowing your personality and the contents of your edits, I see no good reason to start an (almost literally) endless discussion with you that wastes over half the time I have to made any edits on CP whatsoever. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:36, 4 September 2017 (EDT)

Ignoring all the main argument, I also see two other factors. First, this is an "essay," which usually means conflicting points of view can be published. Second, to make this article, JDano copied the work of others into an essay which would presumably have been written solely by him. --David B(TALK) 19:47, 4 September 2017 (EDT)

I think that the headnote makes that clear, but I will add a statement to the talk page giving attribution. Thanks, JDano (talk) 19:52, 4 September 2017 (EDT)

We do not delete essays, no matter how much we disagree with them, unless they are libelous. That's been the rule here for as long as I can remember. The point of an essay is that one can express one's personal point of view, not subject to being reverted or otherwise hounded. The essay category is full of such things.

But I would recommend that JDano request that its name be changed from just the name of another article with "Essay:" in front of it. If I wanted to write yet another essay on the same topic I'd have a difficult time. That's why I named my recently created essay "Essay:Pussy Riot - an Anti-Putin Perspective". SamHB (talk) 20:00, 4 September 2017 (EDT)

In addition to the name of the essay, my problem with his essay is that he attacks me with false claims. I already mentioned this above, but at the top of his essay, JDano writes "Until August 2017, a group of editors worked hard to develop an encyclopedia article on this topic, but then one editor decided unilaterally to delete materials that did not agree with his personal opinions." That statement is bogus -- most of the article is MY WORK, and I edited the article long before August 2017. JDano is blatantly violating Conservapedia Commandment #1, the same commandment he claims to support. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:54, 4 September 2017 (EDT)

Also, as I said quite a lot today, the reason why I removed the info was that they were terrible edits. They inserted liberal bias because they focused on irrelevant topics such as approval rating polls and TIME magazine covers (along with blindly accepting the MSM's narrative on the Pheonix rally and Charlottesville) rather than focusing on the actual topic. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:58, 4 September 2017 (EDT)

I am addressing this concerns on the essay talk page where it belongs. 1990sguy has been misusing this page. JDano (talk) 22:48, 4 September 2017 (EDT)

As an encyclopedia, it would inappropriate to criticize other editors, either individually or as a group, in an entry or essay. On a talk page that would be fine, but not in an entry. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 00:53, 5 September 2017 (EDT)

I don't think that is what prompted 1990sguy to start this section and request the deletion, but I will reword the headnote. You should be aware that the encyclopedia article was a collaborative effort until 1990sguy started to block users with whom he had disagreements in late August 2017. Thanks, JDano (talk) 08:04, 5 September 2017 (EDT)

I would recommend a name that doesn't have JDano's name on it. After all, my "Essay:Pussy Riot - an Anti-Putin Perspective" article doesn't have my name on it. Perhaps use the phrase "an alternative perspective", or "a non-conservative-media perspective", or "a contrarian perspective". I could think of a few edgier names too, but we don't want to get too inflammatory. SamHB (talk) 12:05, 5 September 2017 (EDT)

Andy, would you please make on of these page moves? --1990'sguy (talk) 16:25, 5 September 2017 (EDT)

It appears that 1990sguy is continuing to pick fights. First, I want to make clear that other editors are welcomed to continue adding material to Essay:Mainstream media and Donald Trump, and that the essay represents more than just my personal opinions. It also appears that User:1990sguy has a very unencyclopedic view of Mainstream media and Donald Trump -- rather than explain the difficult relationship between the two, he wants just a list of times that the mainstream media has show bias against or disapproval of Donald Trump or his actions. I don't think that his vision for the article fits with our policy of "Tolerance of opposing ideas means that we're not afraid of describing ideas we don't believe in. If you'll follow our editorial guidelines, then there's no idea off limits. Just write an article which explains what the idea is, who believes in it, and the reasons they give for it." Therefore, I propose a compromise:

This will allow 1990sguy to have a clear label for the list he wants to currate and will allow all interested editors to add content regarding an important topic -- the relationship of Donald Trump and the mainstream media. Many thanks! JDano (talk) 17:57, 5 September 2017 (EDT)

That's not a good "compromise." It's just a way to get your version in the mainspace, and following your suggestion will create two articles with mostly duplicate information. These are the changes that JDano wants to incorporate into the article. Apparently, he thinks it's necessary to discuss negative approval rating data in this article, for example. Andy, please judge those edits for yourself, and please most JDano's essay to a more appropriate name, as I and SamHB said above (and if I and SamHB both agree on something, it shows it's noncontroversial change). --1990'sguy (talk) 18:45, 5 September 2017 (EDT)

Actually, 1990'sguy and me agreeing on something is not all that noteworthy. We would disagree strongly on issues of creationism, for example, if we were ever to get in a conflict over it, but we don't. And his attitude toward Breitbart news seems to me to be appalling, but I haven't looked into the issues enough to want to get involved with that. But these issues of content are, in my opinion, trivial. His positions don't bother me at all. I think we might be able get along just fine.

We also disagree on one matter of policy—whether he should have absolute power to block me any time he wants. But Andy has decided that issue in his favor, so there's nothing I can do about it. In fact, I stopped editing CP for a week when I decided it was no longer safe for me to be here. But JDano came back and survived, so maybe 1990'sguy intends not to exercise arbitrary and absolute power, which I think is a good sign.

But there are several issues of policy that 1990'sguy and I seem to agree on, based on what he said about creating an "essay" page for JDano's writing about MSM and DT:

Non-libelous material is never removed from any talk pages, user pages or otherwise, nor are such pages ever deleted.

Non-libelous material is never removed from any user pages, nor are such pages ever deleted.

Essays are never subject to edit-warring. As much as one may disagree with the content of an essay, it's an essay. One can complain on the talk page, but, ultimately, the author(s) control the content.

Now I think it's unseemly for the content of the MSM+DT main page and JDano's essay to involve complaints about the writing quality of the other. By the way, I'm not going to get involved in that issue. I would need to study both pages in detail, which I don't have time for, and, in any case, it's outside of my area of expertise. However much 1990'sguy and JDano may despise each other's writing, they should each concentrate on making their own article the best it can be. And refrain from attacking each other. Except possibly in talk pages, if you must.

One thing JDano should do is pick an appropriate title for his essay, that appropriately describes its role as a "reply" or "rebuttal" to the main article. Then the essay can be restored and set to that name. Moving pages is a difficult operation, so it would be good to have to move it only once.

(edit conflict) The problem is that if a topic is an encyclopedia article - it must be written in an encyclopedic tone explaining all sides. We are trying to write an encyclopedia article and you keep taking out relevant material claiming that it is not pro-Trump. The relationship between the President and the media is a very important topic. If a reader looks at both he will come away with a better understanding from Essay:Mainstream media and Donald Trump than from the bias fragments that have been slapped together in Mainstream media and Donald Trump, so I do not agree with your proposal to rename and I think that my suggested renaming is a better fit to Conservapedia's policies. If the essay is renamed, I will delete the italic headnote. Thanks, JDano (talk) 19:08, 5 September 2017 (EDT)

Passing off what the MSM says as fact does not give a reader a better understanding on this topic. Nor does including polling data. I notice that, for some reason, all the information that you add related to Trump is negative -- please show me a diff where you added information that portrayed Trump in a positive light; I found quite a lot of the opposite as I showed with the diffs I linked here and elsewhere. This article accurately shows the relationship between Trump and the media as it is, and let me remind you that we are a conservative encyclopedia -- we don't blindly accept the MSM's narrative of various topics as you did. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:06, 5 September 2017 (EDT)

(edit conflict) I agree that we should not pass off what the MSM says as fact, but we can cite to the MSM coverage when a critic claims that the MSM failed to cover something. We should discuss this on the essay talk page, and not change the subject again. Thanks, JDano (talk) 20:34, 5 September 2017 (EDT)

By the way, the relationship between the MSM and Trump is that the former strongly opposes the latter. Trump is not criticizing the MSM because he really wants to -- he's doing it in response to their bias against him. Trump is a New Yorker who once was a more liberal Democrat. If he's now the MSM's #1 opponent, that says something about their reporting.

JDano's favored article unduly favors the MSM's reporting. The diff I linked above shows this, along with this edit, where he delegitimizes the conservative media's critique of the MSM. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:54, 5 September 2017 (EDT)

You are free to raise these concerns on the essay's talk page, this is not the proper place. The phrase "conservative media" is hard to define. Some of it like Fox News is mainstream media. If you want to start a Conservative media and Donald Trump article, we can discuss that complicated relationship as well. We are not here to legitimate or condemn anyone. We just make the article follow the sources without exaggeeration. That is true whether the source agrees with the CP editor or not. Where in the current Mainstream media and Donald Trump do you explain how Trump's strategy has brought things to the current state and whether his media strategy is successful? JDano (talk) 19:08, 5 September 2017 (EDT)

First off, as my previous experiences discussing with you proved worthless as you would consistently refuse to budge, I don't have much interest discussing with you -- it will just lead to an endless discussion. In the past, I was actually more consistent in going to the talk page than you were -- look at the talk pages, including your own. Remember the "female genital mutilation" dispute? It only ended after you were blocked, and you accused me ridiculous and terrible things just because I took the same position that every other editor eventually took along with me. Also, I didn't come here to discuss with you -- I came here to ask Andy to take care of your essay, in which you personally attacked me and made blatantly false claims. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:06, 5 September 2017 (EDT)

(edit conflict) There are established procedures for proposing a page move that allow other people to comment on it. It is done on the essay talk page. There are procedures to discuss content concerns. Again, go to the essay talk page. If you disagree with an editor, you should try to work things out. From the last comment above, you appear to be emotionally involved and upset, so you should not block people with whom you have such feelings. Being a good Christian neighbor, I thought that by creating two different pages, I am trying to avoid future conflicts. Yet, by repeatedly running to Andy's talk page, you are trying to engender and escalate differences. Thanks, JDano (talk) 20:34, 5 September 2017 (EDT)

I believe that there is now an 80% difference between the two pages. I have been working on it all day. I no longer am able to upload pictures. Thanks, JDano (talk) 20:34, 5 September 2017 (EDT)

I have access to a tool which says your essay is "78% percentage similar to" the other page. So you are not even close to doing a proper revision according to this tool (and no I am going to share with you more information about this tool. I will share this tool with 1990sguy though so he can evaluate your efforts in an objective way). Please use different sources, wording and pictures. Website visitors don't very similar content and that is why your essay will be deleted unless you do a very substantial revision. Conservative (talk) 20:47, 5 September 2017 (EDT)

The whole idea is to take the same sources and put them into context. Please read both right now. You can judge as to which version treats the sources fairly. To my knowledge, there has never been a requirement that essays and articles use different pictures or sources. I want other editors (including 1990sguy) to feel free to contribute additional points to the essay or to both the essay and the article (and they should not have to worry about how different their contribution makes the two). May I suggest that you move the Essay back until we can decide what is the best way forward? Many thanks, JDano (talk) 22:32, 5 September 2017 (EDT)

I think Conservative's idea is good. You added information that I think is bad to add to a mainspace article on this topic, so you can keep that in your essay. However, the articles should be different, and an essay is not to supplement -- not replace -- mainspace articles. Until that is achieved, it is appropriate for the essay to be a sub-page of your account. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:37, 5 September 2017 (EDT)

JDano, in the past, I wasted time trying to reason with you on talk pages. I am not going to do that anymore. I deleted your essay.

I did have a confidential talk with 1990sguy about things he could do to improve as an editor. But no matter what improvements he makes, I think that ultimately he will have trouble with you if you persist in pushing an anti-Trump agenda in areas where Trump is being reasonable. Trump is obviously not infallible though and all presidents make mistakes.Conservative (talk) 23:59, 5 September 2017 (EDT)

I don't view this as anything to do with Trump. I think it has to do with a failure to read the sources and to present the sources in a balanced way. I don't care whether the underlying fact makes Trump look bad or good, everyone must avoid stretching sources to support what we hope they say rather than what they actually say. I am a conservative first and foremost, but I am also a dedicated encyclopedia writer. I was active here before Trump rose to his leadership position, and I plan to be here after he is gone. In some cases, I pick a topic and write an article, in other cases like the TAR cleanup effort, you ask me to do the work. Cons, you properly decided the Conservapedia should have a Mainstream media and Donald Trump article (rather than Mainstream media's war on Trump), and I tried to fill out topic based upon how the sources informed me. I had hoped that creating a separate essay would end the problem, but 1990sguy loves to run here to stir up unnecessary drama. If Andy wants to preserve the right of editors to write essays, he knows where this essay is located (as a deleted user subpage). Many thanks, JDano (talk) 00:20, 6 September 2017 (EDT)

Readers don't want substantially duplicate content from other websites posted at Conservapedia nor do they want substantially duplicate articles at Conservapedia. I have zero regrets about deleting that essay. Conservative (talk) 00:36, 6 September 2017 (EDT)

I agree that Conservapedia does not need two articles, but what is there now is a mess with no flow and footnotes that do not support the text. The article says that the Mainstream media failed to report this or that, and yet there are plenty of MSM sources showing the coverage. Cons, as a skilled researcher, perhaps you could clean it up. Thanks, JDano (talk) 00:51, 6 September 2017 (EDT)

An opportunity opened up for me to pursue. I am not going to investigate your claims and I doubt anyone else will either. One or more of your past edit comments and other matters has created a situation where you have few allies. Conservative (talk) 02:58, 6 September 2017 (EDT)

It is not a question of allies. It is a question of Conservapedia's standards and reliability. I can understand if two people have a sincere difference of opinion (for example Editor A supports Trump for the Republican nomination and Editor B supports Ted Cruz). Both editors should respect each others views, but make sure that articles are not slanted for one candidate or the other. I also understand a live and let live attitude toward people curating lists, like Donald Trump achievements if there is clear criteria for what belongs on that list. I don't understand how a topic sentence like "The relationship between the Mainstream media and Donald Trump has been problematic." has drawn so much ire and edit warring. I challenge anyone here to write a better sentence that uses the phrase Mainstream media and Donald Trump that is encyclopedic and accurate and to put it in as the first sentence of the article. We all agree on the facts (that there is bad chemistry between President Trump and the media), we can't agree on how to apply Conservapedia's standards to produce an article. Further, with Cons' unfortunate action late last night, we no longer agree that editors can write essays or have subpages on their user page. JDano (talk) 08:29, 6 September 2017 (EDT)

Your edits in this case (like so many others) were bad. Yes, they did give the article a left-of-center (or RINO) tilt, and they relied exclusively on the MSM, but in this case, they also were irrelevant to the article. Polling numbers in response to the Charlottesville incident are irrelevant to Trump and the media. It is true that sometimes you catch errors in things I write (I have made this very clear in my previous comments, and I often change a lot of my info due to your criticisms). However, you always do more than catch errors -- you insert biased information as well. I revert the bias while keeping the improvements, but you want it to be all or nothing (for all the articles, D.T. achievements, fake news, travel ban, constitutional carry, etc.). I have no regrets that your essay was deleted -- you were given the chance to make it different from the mainspace article, and you still protested anyway. --1990'sguy (talk) 08:46, 6 September 2017 (EDT)

Dear 1990sguy, you have the chronology wrong. The essay was deleted and moved to a user subpage after I spent all day making it different from the article and before I was offered 4 weeks to make it further different. Some people have expressed doubt about this "objective tool" which measures the differences between pages. Could you please shed some light on what is it and what criteria that it applies? Many thanks! JDano (talk) 09:22, 6 September 2017 (EDT)

Conservative moved the essay after checking your article and finding that it was still 78% the same, as the talk page comments attest. Seeing your edits to the essay before it was deleted, this is a reasonable number, as there were many sections that you didn't even touch. I will not reveal something that he does not want me to reveal, but I will assure that it is real and accurate and that I would use it honestly and objectively if given the chance. --1990'sguy (talk) 09:33, 6 September 2017 (EDT)

Conservative, why did you restore it? Does the criteria to make it 80% different still apply? --1990'sguy (talk) 22:16, 6 September 2017 (EDT)

I think it's pretty obvious. He had made an ill-considered decision to delete something, in violation of Conservapedia customs, and he reconsidered. People rethink their decisions, and correct bad decisions, all the time. Cons has done this before—he once deleted my user and talk pages. SamHB (talk) 15:13, 7 September 2017 (EDT)

It is in his userspace. If he doesn't make it 80% different in 30 days, it will be deleted. I restored it to give him a chance at making it 80% different. He is going to have radically change the text,
sources/footnoting and pictures for him to make it under the 80% different threshold for his essay.Conservative (talk) 22:40, 6 September 2017 (EDT)

Again, this discussion does not belong on this page. 1990sguy, why do you conduct all of your communications here instead of relevant talk pages? JDano (talk) 10:56, 7 September 2017 (EDT)

Why are you doing nothing to move the discussion somewhere else? You are posting here, SamHB is posting here, Conservative is posting here (and I just replied to Conservative's comment that he restored the essay), but you only focus on me. If your behavior persists, I may have to take action against you again. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:11, 7 September 2017 (EDT)

Because the page where it naturally belongs was, for a while, deleted. People need to know that the pages on which they are discussing things won't suddenly disappear. I feel sorry for Andy having to have this on his personal talk page, but, until this issue gets straightened out, it needs to be here.

@1990's guy: Your last sentence above sounds like a threat. Contributors to web sites that are trying to appear professional, and that have "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" in their masthead, shouldn't do that.

@JDano: It's obvious that things you have written in your essay anger 1990'sguy a great deal. While he needs to deal with his anger, please do what you can to keep your essay from saying things that would anger reasonable people.

@1990's guy: Many things here at CP anger me greatly: the Conservative Bible Project, the Counterexamples to Relativity, the Counterexamples to an Old Earth, the Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge page, to name just a few. We have to deal with those things. We respect diverse opinions, as a wiki like this should. But I agree that personal attacks should not be present in any pages anywhere.

@Cons: If you really think that some kind of objective technical "tool" to compare pages would be a useful thing, why don't you send it to all of us? You know my email, of course. There are actually a few things I would like to analyze objectively with such a tool.

@Cons: To show your patience, why don't you increase the 30 day limit to 66 days? With the added detail that they must be 66 consecutive days that you keep your promise not to edit Conservapedia, as described at the bottom of my talk page? The clock starts now, or, more precisely, at 10:49, 7 September.

Of course there are things I don't like, but I wish JDano would act in a manner similar to you or DavidB4. He should know by now that his POV is not conservative (or, if you insist, like the conservatism supported by CP, a conservative encyclopedia) and would accordingly be more cautious in his edits. However, he continues making sneaky edits (making canned edit summaries that don't say what he is actually doing) inserting liberal bias and/or favoring the MSM over the conservative media, like on the Barack Obama article,[3][4] Constitutional Carry (calling it a "propaganda term", etc.), D.T. achievements, fake news (taking away blame of the MSM), gun control, etc. He then gets into edit fights over the content (before I started coming here, I was actually better than him at going to either his talk page or the article talk page, and sometimes he would not respond to my comments). Sometimes, he makes ridiculous personal attacks[5] (apparently, thinking that FGM is a predominantly Muslim practice either makes you a parodist or someone trying to legalize the practice -- CP's other editors disagree). If you want to know why I'm angry at JDano, I hope this helps. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:01, 7 September 2017 (EDT)

SamHB, I will follow your suggestions regarding the 66 days. JDano has 66 days now.

Please remember that the 66 day period is a period during which you do not edit Conservapedia. The clock starts when you stop. As of now, that means that the clock started at 08:42 on 9 September.

After today, I am going to refrain from writing anything that will tempt Cons to edit here. Further communication will be by email, where we can discuss things freely, without either of us being tempted to engage in "grandstanding". But first, I need you to send me the "objective comparison tool" that you referred to above, and for which you provided a screen shot below. So please bear with me for a little bit longer while I argue with you publicly, below. SamHB (talk) 13:03, 9 September 2017 (EDT)

Second, THIS ARTICLE convinced me that Europe very stubborn and very much engaging in denialism as far as Islam. If this continues, within 2-4 generations Islamic/evangelical creationism could easily kill off evolutionism in Britain, France and Germany. In 4-6 generations, creationists could kill off evolutionism in Europe. On top of this, evangelical Christianity is growing by leaps and bounds in China. You know you can't satisfactorily answer the 15 questions for evolutionists. Its time you stop clinging to your lost causes of evolutionism and old earthism. Conservative (talk)

Ummmm, I was puzzled at first that you were inserting material about evangelical creationism right here in the middle of the dispute between 1990'sguy and Jdano over an essay relating to Donald Trump. But then I realized that it was another swipe at me and my acceptance of evolution, bizarrely placed in the middle of this discussion. With a reference to a "15 questions" item on a creationist web site.

Cons, we've been through this many many times before. I do not accept articles from creationist/fundamentalist religious sources as being authoritative about scientific discussions. But I figured I'd humor you and at least look at the page this one time. The page says, right at the top, that "The General Theory of Evolution, as acknowledged by prominent evolutionists, includes the origin of life." No, that is not true. Prominent scientists (or even those that are not prominent) do not acknowledge any such idea. I stopped reading right there. SamHB (talk) 13:03, 9 September 2017 (EDT)

1990sguy, JDano is liberal on some issues. Liberals always double down. People who are liberal on certain issues often double down on those issues. Sooner or later you are going to have to block JDano for longer and longer periods. He is not going to change otherwise. Conservative (talk) 17:10, 7 September 2017 (EDT)

Dear Cons, I am conservative on most issues, and libertarian on others. The reason why you do not understand my personal political opinions is that I take my work at Conservapedia very seriously as an obligation to the high-school level readers that we are trying to serve. Conservapedia commandment #5 is "Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry." So I do not, and I also delete it when I see that others have posted opinions -- whether I agree or disagree with it. Let's move this discussion to the proper talk page please. JDano (talk) 17:49, 7 September 2017 (EDT)

I don't know where you get the idea that there are skeptics about the existence of this tool, or the idea that it is mysterious. The only mystery is why you haven't mailed it, or a download URL, to me. Now it's true that JDano wrote, above, that "Some people have expressed doubt about this "objective tool" which measures the differences between pages." I don't know who he thinks those "some people" are. I haven't seen any doubt expressed anywhere at Conservapedia.

As I'm sure you know, comparing files is tricky. The theoretical research ("Hamming distance", for example) is useless here. Textual comparison tools are an important part of software Integrated Development Environments (IDE's), or even environments that aren't integrated, as in the Emacs "three-way-merge" operation. The wikimedia software that is used to compare versions of files in the file history here at CP (which is how we got into this fight in the first place) is surprisingly quirky, even though the problem it is trying to solve is much easier. As an example, compare the 10:38, 9 September 2017 and 10:44, 9 September 2017 versions of the Equifax article. Did it really consider the files to be different in just 5 pairs of wikilink brackets, or in 4 pairs plus a complete paragraph? It makes a big difference—that paragraph is the bulk of the article.

So I'd really like to get this tool and try it out on various files, both here at CP and elsewhere. I might even add it to my set of software development utilities. So please send it to me by email. Then I will stop tempting you to get involved in this discussion and thereby breaking your promise. SamHB (talk) 13:03, 9 September 2017 (EDT)

OK, I found it. Google the quoted phrase "secret magic tool to measure the degree to which articles are different", and you will see an expression of skepticism about the existence of this tool, apparently expressed 3 days ago. On everyone's favorite web site. SamHB (talk) 13:12, 9 September 2017 (EDT)

IP blocking for "servers allowing spam"

Hi,
I have some lists of "servers allowing spam" (I'll refrain from using the proper name for these servers for the sake of those who may not know) from some other off-site administration duties. I see some other Admins and Assistant SysOps have been blocking such IPs, but I wasn't sure if as an assistant SysOp, I have the authority to do that. Would you like me to implement such blocks, or shall I refrain, or perhaps just send you the lists for you to check before blocking? Thanks! --David B(TALK) 21:04, 22 August 2017 (EDT)

Perhaps it would be best if you sent me the list first. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:16, 22 August 2017 (EDT)

Okay, I'll need to sort it first, but will try to send you some of them soon. At this point what I have is "dirty data" so maybe I will clean up some of them (a "sample") and send those, and if you want more afterwards, I'll keep going. Cheers! --David B(TALK) 23:22, 22 August 2017 (EDT)

I've sent a partial list. I'll put a hold on further extraction pending you reply. I literally have hundreds, and probably thousands, most of which do not seem to be blocked on CP. However, for better or worse there are no IP ranges, only specific addresses. --David B(TALK) 00:19, 23 August 2017 (EDT)

Do you happen to know if any specific countries' addresses are used against us more than others?

As I'm sure you have seen, I have started blocking the addresses I have. This really is just the tip of the iceberg, though--I have many thousands more. I feel funny blocking so many, but most are overseas anyway, so I suppose there is no harm. --David B(TALK) 16:13, 24 August 2017 (EDT)

You're doing great work. As to which countries, China and Singapore might be a bit worse than most. But that's just a guess.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:47, 24 August 2017 (EDT)

Thank you! I may pay a little more attention to those locations then, but if you don't know of any specific trends, I won't make a special effort to focus on any. It sounds like you don't mind, so I'll keep going. Do I assume correctly there is no method here to block multiple addresses at once? I'm starting to figure out the scope of how long processing all of these addresses will be. I just "scraped" addresses from one service alone, and got about 49,000 addresses in all. I can't deal with that kind of quantity manually, even if I do run out of addresses of my own. If not, that's okay--I'll just do some of what I have, and stop with that. --David B(TALK) 00:27, 25 August 2017 (EDT)

This policy makes it impossible for me to work here. Another assistant has already improperly wielded block authority against me because of my contention, in the Pussy Riot article, that one does not need to be an "elitist" or "leftist" to oppose murderous thug Vladimir Putin.

Once again, SamHB, you conveniently ignore that you were blocked for attempting to impose a liberal POV on that article and for edit warring (both in violation of Conservapedia policy) and for trying to provoke fights, as you're doing even now with your thinly-veiled shot at me. You brought that, and your other previous blocks, down on yourself through your history of behavior here, and trying to claim "improper" use of block authority to excuse and dismiss your behavior here does not make your case. Follow the rules of the site instead of fighting them (and those who actually follow them) and you'll be a lot better off for it. Northwest (talk) 02:29, 26 August 2017 (EDT)

SamHB, there is nothing "suspicious" about me wanting to archive everything -- the talk page had nearly 300,000 bytes, and it took very long to scroll down to the bottom. Also, I did not specify which discussions to archive -- I would not have argued if Andy kept the disputes with JDano (but now their archived, so you're just duplicating the discussions by re-adding them here, Sam).

Sam, JDano's editing style is the one that makes it impossible to work here, not to mention the fact that many of his edits have inserted left-of-center POV (such as calling constitutional carry a "propaganda term", etc.). I have been extremely reluctant to use any blocking authority on him regardless -- SamHB, if there were misconduct on my part, it wouldn't be because I am acting the way I do now. --1990'sguy (talk) 09:31, 26 August 2017 (EDT)

(edit conflict) The problem is that our rules about blocking cannot depend on whether the content is thought to be liberal or conservative. All an angry person with blocking authority needs to do is to define "conservative" as content I prefer and "liberal" as content the other person prefers. If two people have an editing dispute, they should try to work it out. If one or both of the people have blocking authority, they should not use it because they are too emotionally involved. In the long term, we need to build a colleagial working environment, and blocking the person with whom you disagree destroys that environment. Thanks, JDano (talk) 09:29, 26 August 2017 (EDT)

"I would not have argued if Andy kept the disputes with JDano"? Really? You would have been OK with those disputes staying? And yet, when I put them back you deleted them? And you would like me to believe that Andy's archiving the page was his own idea, though he archived it 38 minutes after you requested it? And you claim (in an edit comment) that "SamHB, you explicitly refused to comment on them at first."? I commented on these issues all along. SamHB (talk) 10:06, 26 August 2017 (EDT)

Sam, you're duplicating discussions. They are now in the archives and on this talk page. They should be only on one or the other. Archiving the talk page obviously was not Andy's idea, as I suggested it. However, Andy was the one who did it -- he obviously thought it was a good idea. I did not tell him to archive everything, just that the vast majority could be archived. --1990'sguy (talk) 10:09, 26 August 2017 (EDT)

You're right. The material has plenty of links into it in the paragraphs above. What you requested was that Andy "archive the discussions on your talk page", without suggesting any limit. If you would have been OK with his archiving only older material, you wouldn't have objected to my "correcting" things, would you? SamHB (talk) 10:56, 26 August 2017 (EDT)

Only if you don't duplicate the discussions -- frankly, it is sloppy editing to do otherwise. At the same time, I do have to say, that the discussions are over. There is no more dispute for any of them, and I don't want to be forced back into wasting 50% of my available time arguing over stuff that I thought were resolved weeks/months ago. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:03, 26 August 2017 (EDT)

Besides, Sam, why are you now so concerned about having this information back on the actual talk page? You explicitly refused to comment on the disputes earlier: [6] --1990'sguy (talk) 10:11, 26 August 2017 (EDT)

I withdrew my offer to contribute when you made it clear, as you have done on a number of occasions, to me and others, that you view people's contributions as "acceptable" or "unacceptable", placing yourself as the arbiter of what can be said on this wiki. SamHB (talk) 10:56, 26 August 2017 (EDT)

Deletion of GinnyS's user and talk page

Please restore the talk page of user GinnyS. (I don't specifically care about her user page.) She was recently blocked for objectionable behavior, and, much as I wish that hadn't happened, it did. But her talk page had quite a bit of advice from me to her as a new user. I advised her against precisely the things that she did. Her talk page should stay up as an example of how to behave and how not to behave. It could be useful to future people. In any case, it is never necessary to delete user pages of people who have left.

I have been trying to encourage Cons to refrain from useless activity on CP (see my talk page), and he admits that he has a problem in this area. I think it would be useful to show that actions such as his deletion of Ginny's page are not productive. SamHB (talk) 23:36, 27 August 2017 (EDT)

Kaspersky logo

Hello,
The issue of legal trademark reuse continues to confuse me. I recently created an article on Kaspersky Lab following the buzz about their potential connections to the Kremlin. I was looking into whether it would be permitted to use their logo on that page, and cannot find a definitive answer. As usual, Wikipedia (and Wikimenda commons) says that while a trademark, the logs are not copyrightable and therefore can be used basically in any way they wish. I can't find much on the matter on Kaspersky's own website, but just two official "blog" posts with their logo in two different sizes, clearly for reuse. [7] (older one here: [8]). I would also be fine with just the "K" logo: [9]
What do you think? Would it be alright for us to use one such logo on the page about them? Thanks! --David B(TALK) 13:42, 31 August 2017 (EDT)

David, good question. It would be "fair use" to use their logo as part of an entry about them. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 00:47, 5 September 2017 (EDT)

Thanks! I've added a low-resolution version of it to the article. --David B(TALK) 09:52, 5 September 2017 (EDT)

User:1990sguy

User:1990sguy is again following me around and acting in a hostile and intimidating manner. He falsely claimed that I copied material from an article he wrote, which I denied "swearing on a Bible", and he called me a liar. He is being unnecessarily disruptive to my effort to write a full comprehensive and unbiased article on Donald Trump and social media. I would appreciate your help on this matter. Many thanks, JDano (talk) 18:01, 8 September 2017 (EDT)

One: Since when was removing liberal/establishment/MSM bias a bad thing? You're the one who is adding the bias and denying reality: contrary to your edits, the establishmentIS a real, commonly-used, and objective term (and it has its own CP article), John McCain and Linsey Graham ARE RINOs (just look at their positions and voting records), and the WH staffers who oppose Trump's tweeting ARE on the moderate wing. Stop denying reality and giving articles MSM spin (the MSM makes Graham and McCain appear to be conservative, for example).

Two: Please read Donald Trump achievements: Media and political correctness#Trump's establishment of a massive direct line to the public via social media. JDano clearly copied a lot of that section into the other article. You can tell because he uses a lot of the same wording, uses the same references, and he even formats the references MY way, which is a lot different than how he usually formats them as he uses the "cite web" ref template.BTW, I never said that it was a bad thing to copy from that article -- I just noted that it happened. I don't disapprove of his copying in this case, as it did not violate any copyright. JDano, if you really did not copy from that article, please prove to me that you did not. Everything in that action of the D.T. achievements sub-article is very-similar-to-identical to the Donald Trump and social media article where you transferred it.

Three: Wow, JDano, you constantly criticize me for going to Andy's talk page, and now you're doing the same thing. You are not following your own ethical standards. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:13, 8 September 2017 (EDT)

As I previously disclosed on the article talk page, it was copied from Donald Trump, and I have not read the article that you mentioned above. You continue to insult and harrass me for no good purpose. You call me a liar without any basis. This is all very toxic. JDano (talk) 22:19, 8 September 2017 (EDT)

In all honesty, your behavior in the 9 months has also played a large role in the toxicness. If you think that I'm only the one to blame, you're wrong, by a lot. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:38, 8 September 2017 (EDT)

Camelid Category change

Hi,
I've been holding off from this project because it requires some protected page edits. However, I decided to go ahead and try to get it done. Category:Camelid should not exist, since it is the singular rather than plural. Would you please do the following?

Vandalism delete request

Please delete the article "Dildo", which was created by a vandal (unless someone else does it first). I cannot add the speedy deletion tag to it because my university's server is not letting me access the page due to the inappropriate title. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:18, 19 September 2017 (EDT)

I tend to find excessive locking a significany inconvenience, but I highly doubt there will be any legitimate need to create an article under that name. Should we just lock it? This is the third creation of a page under that name by vandals. --David B(TALK) 00:57, 20 September 2017 (EDT)

We could also protect some of the other pages that vandal created, as at least some of them were created before. --1990'sguy (talk) 08:58, 20 September 2017 (EDT)

P.S. Deleted as requested. As to your MPR suggestions, I prefer to vary the topics rather than repeatedly post similar points. But thanks and we can cycle back to your suggestion.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 12:49, 21 September 2017 (EDT)

Two requests

Hello Andy, please delete the article National liberalism. It is an unsourced essay-like article created by an editor who is biased against the insurgent right-wing conservative European movements and is trying to frame them as liberal (if those parties are liberal, then does this mean that Angela Merkel -- the pro-EU and -mass migration globalist -- is conservative?).

Also, would you please add the fact that Angela Merkel's CDU (which is not any more Christian despite its name -- Merkel was the one who legalized gay "marriage" recently, for example, and doesn't mind that homeschooling is outright illegal) won its lowest result since 1949 and that the Alternative for Germany won seats for the first time?[10] --1990'sguy (talk) 14:18, 25 September 2017 (EDT)

Andy, please reply to my requests here (the first one can wait, though, but the second one should be acted upon now), along with David's. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:37, 26 September 2017 (EDT)

Added these as requested. Not sure how to proceed on the other requests. The first one seeks a deletion, which I'm reluctant to do. The second one seems to suggest adding an editorial-type of comment, to which I am not opposed.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:10, 26 September 2017 (EDT)

For the Merkel/CDU/AfD request, please add it to Template:Mainpageright. You don't have to worry about the other request right now, since I told him to improve the article at the "Problems with your "national liberalism" article" of his talk page (the article has serious concerns, mainly liberal bias, falsely calling several conservative European parties "liberal" and tying them to the Nazi Party -- all without any sources whatsoever). --1990'sguy (talk) 23:18, 26 September 2017 (EDT)

I'm going to have to agree with 1990sGuy about this "national liberalism" article. The subject needs to be bona-fide to be an article here, and there's a hint that it's painting other political parties as something they are not, then it has to go. Karajou (talk) 00:40, 27 September 2017 (EDT)

OK, please edit or delete the entry as you think best.

As to the Merkel issue, I'm not following German politics enough to know whether a victory by her, albeit with a low percentage, is a good or bad thing. It would depend on who her opponents were, I suppose. Regardless, that news would not override the news from Alabama, which I do know a lot about.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 00:44, 27 September 2017 (EDT)

Andy, Merkel lost a major numerous of seats, and these seats were taken by the Alternative for Germany party, a conservative and Euroskeptic party. This election was about liberal globalists losing ground and conservative nationalists gaining. Please add to mainpageright -- I am OK with you doing it below the mention of Roy Moore. --1990'sguy (talk) 08:40, 27 September 2017 (EDT)

OK, thanks, I just haven't been following German politics. I'll let the spectacular Alabama news sit there a bit longer and then post this good news from Germany. Thanks for letting me know!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 11:04, 27 September 2017 (EDT)

Well, then I will wait a bit until asking you again to post this -- but we shouldn't wait too long. In the meantime, would you please post this news, as you said you would above? Also, You inserted only one "<big>" tag at MPR, so everything below the Roy Moore news has big letters. Please fix. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:55, 27 September 2017 (EDT)

Posted news about the Germany election, as you suggested. As to the Israeli wall, opposition to a border wall is not based on doubts that it would stop the flow of illegals, so the story is not really surprising or newsworthy. But thanks for your suggestions.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 01:17, 28 September 2017 (EDT)

Requests related to administrative tasks

I recently received some requests from User: 1990sguy but I have been in the midst of engaging in a lot of matters off wiki so I have not been checking my email account devoted to Conservapedia matters. I see this situation continuing for a good while. Karajou has been busy with some things off wiki and it sounds like he may be busy for awhile.

Andy, please make User:DavidB4 an admin who does not yet have main page posting privileges. Consider doing the same for User: 1990sguy. Conservative (talk) 08:10, 1 October 2017 (EDT)

I don't want to push or pressure, but I just want to note that I really have very little interest in main mage posting anyway, so I would be happy with such an arrangement. Very happy, in fact, since I would find delete, protect, and unprotect quite useful. Checkuser might also be helpful in my efforts of blocking abusable IPs. It's up to you, of course. --David B(TALK) 17:15, 10 October 2017 (EDT)

I did not notice this discussion until just now. I will continue to make MPR/main page requests on your talk page, assuming editing the main page is your main concern about me being an admin. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:29, 10 October 2017 (EDT)

(but I will be content if you choose to only make DavidB4 an admin) --1990'sguy (talk) 17:30, 10 October 2017 (EDT)

MPR request

Hello Andy, please add Steve Scalise's statement that his recent shooting made him even more pro-gun -- something that flies in the face of liberals: [11] --1990'sguy (talk) 19:04, 3 October 2017 (EDT)

Your suggestion is good, but who is the intended audience for that proposed news item? In some ways it might reinforce a negative view that young liberals have about Republicans, coming so close on the heals of the mass murder in Las Vegas. It is might better to understand Stephen Paddock first.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 19:44, 4 October 2017 (EDT)--Andy Schlafly (talk) 19:44, 4 October 2017 (EDT)

I would say everyone, as conservatives can use this story to counter liberals when they claim (emotionalistic arguments) that victims of shootings want more gun control or when they say mass shootings are proof that gun control is necessary, and as liberals who view CP would see their own assumptions countered. Celebrities and the media consistently push for more gun control after these shootings, and we've all heard of Brady and Giffords, so people who are influenced by the MSM and Hollywood might find it interesting that someone in a similar situation came out of it with a different opinion.

I don't think this will reinforce any negative views that liberals have, at least if worded the right way. Besides, liberals need to hear clear and strong arguments on why the 2nd Amendment is a good thing -- it seems like many of the "spokesmen" for conservatism in the past decades have been weak and accepting of the Left's assumptions, and that (seeing spokesmen for the opposite ideology fail to make good arguments) reinforces the negative views of liberals about conservatives. I saw a decent amount of media coverage wondering what Scalise now thinks about gun control, so this might surprise people, particularly liberals. We cannot go on the defensive on gun control because of a mass shooting -- if we do, we're accepting the Left's assumptions and letting them gain ground. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:01, 4 October 2017 (EDT)

Update: Scalise did another interview where he took an even stronger stance for gun rights, saying that it's still too early to consider a bump stock ban, and saying that liberals want a slippery slope that will slowly end gun rights in the U.S.[12] --1990'sguy (talk) 18:03, 5 October 2017 (EDT)

It's not a slow response, but skepticism about whether Scalise's position warrants a headline. The GOP leadership opposes gun control, period. As I responded earlier, I don't see Scalise's position moving young liberals trying to make sense of the Las Vegas massacre. Insights that are directly about that are of greater interest than political posturing from D.C. I welcome comments by others on this issue.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 10:31, 6 October 2017 (EDT)

I don't know if this report specifically will be influential, but perhaps it could be. I do think it's important to show why constitutional carry is important, but I'm not sure what form that should take.

Unfortunately, in this case a civilian armed with a pistol might not have stopped this, since s/he would need to fire up very far, to a distance at which a pistol becomes inaccurate. Firing back may have deterred the attacker, but it could have also put those in neighboring apartments at risk. Too bad no one there had a rife! --David B(TALK) 20:36, 6 October 2017 (EDT)

I also would like to see more people pointing out that gun laws already make civilian possession, sale, and purchase of a machine gun illegal--clearly that law did a lot of good. As we know, when someone wants a weapon for a crime, they don't typically go to Wal-Mart. --David B(TALK) 20:39, 6 October 2017 (EDT)

Andy, the GOP leadership, in general, is weak -- they're giving in to liberal pressure to enact gun control. And even if this bump stock ban doesn't really infringe of the Second Amendment, it is definitely a slippery slope to opening the door to additional gun regulations. In the U.S. and other countries, all the gun regulations weren't established in one law -- they were created in multiple small laws, each one of them appearing to be "reasonable," but either motivated by an emotionalistic response to a mass shooting or by faith in an expansive government. This bump stock ban is merely a continuation of the slippery slope to socialism.

Frankly, I do think that regardless of how influential the news about Scalise is, I think it will be at least as much as the news about who the shooter was. The news about Scalise directly shatters the assumptions of the Left -- we're used to seeing people like Brady and Giffords who support gun control after being shot, but now we see someone doing the opposite (and Brady was a Republican, so the Scalise news might still surprise liberals). --1990'sguy (talk) 22:24, 6 October 2017 (EDT)

Donald Trump achievements

In less than 10-and-a-half months of existence, the Donald Trump achievements article that I created received over 205,000 views. If this rate keeps up, it will have about 1 million views by the next Inauguration Day. Please move the article's link in MPL further up to give it increased visibility on the main page -- this is a topic that people are interested in, and it helps CP if we promote well-sourced and high-quality articles that people are interested in. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:44, 14 October 2017 (EDT)

In addition, I recommend putting other "hot topic" articles at the top of the main page. I recommend moving the Globalism (which I think has doubled its number of page views since early this year or late last year) and European migrant crisis articles further up, and adding the Fake news article, which has received over 12,000 views in less than 11 months, to MPL. The latter two articles are also very well-sourced and have a high quality. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:53, 14 October 2017 (EDT)

Done as suggested. You make great points. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 12:14, 15 October 2017 (EDT)

Thank you (by the way, the Donald Trump achievements article got another 1,000 views since I last posted here). I am curious, however, about why you didn't add the fake news article? --1990'sguy (talk) 23:44, 15 October 2017 (EDT)

I think fake news entry could be improved. It doesn't convey the sense that it is used by Donald Trump. Thanks and I welcome more edits. I'll try to work on it also.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 12:43, 16 October 2017 (EDT)

Thank you--unfortunately, many of those were created by me when I moved the pages to their correct names. It seems I can't move a page without creating a redirect, which while sometimes helpful, can also be messy. Thanks for cleaning that up! Would you also please delete the following when you get the chance? There are a lot of these.

(not a delete request) Please add the code {{See also|Conservative news websites}} to the top of the "News" section of the Conservative links article.

In addition to all the above, I don't know what to do with Category:Conservative Political Organizations. I removed the CATO Institute from the category, the only article on it. This category is completely redundant with "Category:Conservative Organizations", but I don't feel strongly on this.

I just promoted your account to delete privileges. However, please use carefully and please do not delete any content entries without checking first here. Thanks!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 15:31, 25 November 2017 (EST)

Thank you. I will go to you for every page that I'm not sure about (along with every content article), just like I have either asked you or DavidB4 about uploading questionable imagages even though I have image upload rights. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:20, 25 November 2017 (EST)

Veterans

Hello Andy, I probably should have asked you this earlier today, but would you please make an MPR blurb about how President Trump has been helping veterans, linking to Donald Trump achievements: Veterans? --1990'sguy (talk) 22:22, 11 November 2017 (EST)

Roy Moore

Andy, would you please add Roy Moore's article to the main page, at least until the general election? Would you please add a "featured article section up top for that, to avoid having Moore's article be lost among the other articles after a reshuffle? I think his article has a very high quality. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:55, 12 November 2017 (EST)

Also, would you please add to MPR Moore's statement that McConnell should resign, as well as the fact that the lawyer representing the fifth accuser, Gloria Allred, is a liberal who supports abortion (and actually had an abortion before it was legalized), homosexual "marriage", and was a Democrat delegate this election[13]? The second blurb about Allred undermines her client's claim to being a conservative Republican (why would a conservative go to her?). --1990'sguy (talk) 16:32, 13 November 2017 (EST)

In addition to the above, I would like to let you know of Thomas Wictor's analysis of the claims made against Moore, in which he shows that Moore is innocent. I recommend sharing this with whomever necessary. --1990'sguy (talk) 09:20, 14 November 2017 (EST)

You could also add to MPR the hypocrisy of how the media is failing to report on criminal charges against Bob Menendez which otherwise are similar to the allegations against Moore,[14][15] or how the same Republicans condemning Moore are defending Menendez.[16] --1990'sguy (talk) 17:48, 14 November 2017 (EST)

I would appreciate it if you would at least reply to my suggestions. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:13, 14 November 2017 (EST)

Your suggestions are very good. This topic is top priority. The items posted just seemed slightly more compelling than the links you recommended. For example, posting a link to a Twitter feed is not ideal. But thanks so much for the terrific ideas, which are spot on.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 01:05, 15 November 2017 (EST)

Thanks. What do you think about adding this to MPR? Moore's campaign is giving good evidence here to the contrary of the allegations against him. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:39, 15 November 2017 (EST)

Andy, I know you're busy (I saw you at Judge Moore's rally today), but would you please explain why this is not something to add, if you rejected it? I like to know why on things like this. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:37, 16 November 2017 (EST)

Traveling to and from Birmingham yesterday kept me mostly off Conservapedia. Sorry!

Your suggestions are great but in light of our audience, I think the double standard concerning Al Franken is slightly better. But let's find a way to work your best links onto the Main Page.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 13:33, 17 November 2017 (EST)

Sounds good. I also found this link, where Franklin Graham notes that the people condemning Moore for these allegations are guilty of doing even worse things.[17] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:44, 17 November 2017 (EST)

Is there any chance that you would post the fact that several women have come out defending Moore's character, one of the things I posted above? Breitbart News also published an article about this: [18] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:15, 18 November 2017 (EST)

Unlock request

Hello,
Would you please unlock the image File:567rugyhj.png so I can give it a meaningful name as requested by 1990'sguy? I will then correct the file references on other pages so nothing breaks. Thank you! --David B(TALK) 20:17, 27 November 2017 (EST)

In addition to DavidB4's request above, what is your opinion of adding this story to MPR? The MSM widely reported on the write-in challenger, but they overlooked the fact that he is apparently a liberal trying to steal the election from Moore. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:53, 27 November 2017 (EST)

I will expand the page when I get time, hopefully this evening. I've been storing good information about Jones and his leftist positions on Roy Moore's talk page. --1990'sguy (talk) 09:27, 28 November 2017 (EST)

Thank you for the unlock! I've renamed it to File:European Union flag.png and fixed all file references. I also took the opportunity to add categorize the file while I could. If you would like, you can lock it again as far as I am concerned. --David B(TALK) 10:47, 28 November 2017 (EST)

More unlock requests

Hello again,
I'm doing some category moves for 1990'sguy, but there are some pages I cannot recategorize because they are protected. Would you please unlock the following pages so I can recategorize them? (I may also rename the first two files)

Also, as I move pages, the wiki forces me to leave a redirect behind, which is not always helpful. When you get the chance, would you also please delete the following pages, left behind after my page moves today? Sorry about the mess!

It is QUITE a list--there is certainly no rush, but I just don't want to leave a mess and confuse people when they are setting categories. Thank you! --David B(TALK) 17:00, 1 December 2017 (EST)

Isn't there a box you can uncheck when moving, to prevent this?--Andy Schlafly (talk) 20:28, 1 December 2017 (EST)

Unfortunately, no. I have a check box for "add to watchlist" and another for "move associated talk page" but that is all. Here is a screenshot of what I see. I have been assuming that redirect-free moves are reserved for administrators, but perhaps this is not the case? --David B(TALK) 15:23, 2 December 2017 (EST)

Just promoted your account to "delete" privileges. You can do these requests directly yourself now. Congratulations!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 16:27, 2 December 2017 (EST)

Oh!! Okay, thank you very much! Would you still please unlock those those pages I mentioned above at some point? Thanks again! --David B(TALK) 16:38, 2 December 2017 (EST)

Jerusalem

Surely the news about the embassy in Jerusalem merits an MPR item.[19]PeterKa (talk) 21:54, 5 December 2017 (EST)

Yes, this is big news -- finally, we have a president willing to buck the liberal/globalist status-quo. However, is it better to wait until the announcement is official tomorrow to post on Mainpageright? --1990'sguy (talk) 22:18, 5 December 2017 (EST)

Here's a left-wing double standard: Chuck Schumer, who claims to support the move, criticized Trump for "indecisiveness" on whether to make the decision.[20] However, what Trump will do is much more than what any other president, including the Democrats (and probably also Hillary Clinton), ever did. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:09, 5 December 2017 (EST)

(edit conflict, responding to first two postings above) I don't object to this but, as I've mentioned before, our focus here is on American issues. This news is not much of a headline in the United States, or controversial here, and we're not experts on issues local to the Middle East.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:59, 5 December 2017 (EST)

Really? I've seen a lot local Israel stuff of MPR. After all, it's the Holy Land. Up to you, I suppose. A move like this would normally be a huge deal. But there are at least four other major stories all approaching their climaxes: Roy Moore, North Korean nukes, the Mueller investigation, and the tax bill. So I can understand if it gets lost in the shuffle. PeterKa (talk) 05:32, 6 December 2017 (EST)

I think it should be posted on MPR for a few reasons:

This news is a major headline in the United States, and it's also controversial even in the U.S. -- every news outlet, including the MSM and conservative media, is putting this story at the top of their front pages -- and it will become even more major once President Trump gives his speech on it, where he will presumably say do we're expecting him to do.

This story is more than just about the Middle East, it's about official U.S. policy in the Middle East.

This issue is very important to both evangelical Christians, many Jews (even Democrats, actually, but mainly Republicans), and possibly other conservative Christian denominations.

This seems like something worth mentioning to me as well. It's true that that is more of an issue in the middle east than here, but consider this: The UN has been attacking Israel for a while now, making proclamations that Israel is not a legitimate country, should give its land to their Arab neighbors, are aggressors, etc. Israel (rightly) pulled funding from the UN, but that's about all they can do. Now amidst all of this pressure from the UN, the US is taking a stand for their legitimacy. By moving to Jerusalem, we say to the world that we believe Israel has a legitimate claim on their capitol. I know some people in the U.S. really don't care about Israel, but there is a lot more to this move than just a matter of scenery, convenience, etc. We are taking a stand in the view of the world to say that we support Israel. They have constantly been the victims, but we are saying that we still do support them. We are also going against the UN and its agenda. --David B(TALK) 23:53, 6 December 2017 (EST)

I've spent a lot of time speaking with Israelis and learned enough to know that these issues are complex and difficult to understand from afar. For example, I don't know how supportive Israelis themselves are of the United States moving our embassy to Jerusalem, and I don't know what it really means for that international city. Certainly we have the right to do that and I support President Trump's decision, but I don't pretend to understand all the local implications halfway around the world.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 00:13, 7 December 2017 (EST)

Agreed, there is a lot we can't see, and I don't know how helpful this will be, or what other impacts it will have. I do know that Benjamin Netanyahu told former president Obama on at least one occasion that "Mr. President, it is time to move the embassy." I also know that he has already spoken in support of it when the issue was more recently discussed. (see: [21]) Still, you are right, we don't know the inner workings of Israeli politics. --David B(TALK) 00:44, 7 December 2017 (EST)

I can say for sure that Israel's leaders strongly supported Trump's decision: [22][23] Also, Israelis think more highly of President Trump than the people of any other country, as of June 2017.[24] The announcement has undoubtedly increased that rating. --1990'sguy (talk) 08:48, 7 December 2017 (EST)

Thanks for the excellent points. It may be a brilliant move. The push for it did not originate with Trump, but he is the decisive leader who got it done. Moreover, as implied above, Obama refused to do it, so that suggests it is a step in the right direction. Appreciate the insights about this above.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 11:21, 7 December 2017 (EST)

Congress voted to move the embassy back in 1995. In 2010, the U.S. opened an oversized consulate in Jerusalem that's ready to serve as an embassy. All they would have to do is switch the signs on the gates. All the same, it doesn't look like it's gonna happen anytime soon. PeterKa (talk) 05:21, 8 December 2017 (EST)

Yes, I don't see why they need to build a new building in Jerusalem to be the embassy -- opponents of moving the embassy in the administration could use this to stall the move to make sure it never takes place. At the same time, at least President Trump actually recognized Jerusalem (a statement of reality) and started taking steps to move the embassy. His predecessors were just talk: [25] The people of Tel Aviv also seem to like this decision: [26] --1990'sguy (talk) 10:26, 8 December 2017 (EST)

Interesting--clearly not all are in support of it, anyway. However, now I'm curious:

Who qualifies as a "scholar"?

Is Israeli academia as liberal as ours?

Why could they only find 100 people to sign this?

Maybe I'm just being too suspicious, but they seem like legitimate questions which are not dealt with in this article. --David B(TALK) 15:05, 8 December 2017 (EST)

We see this all the time in campaigns --> "100 generals/pastors/businessmen/etc. sign letter in support for Trump/Hillary/etc." It makes you think that the candidate has the support of all pastors/generals/etc., but there are thousands -- at least -- of these people, so having 100 or less of them sign a letter is meaningless, other than the good-looking headline.

Let's also remember that academics tend to be very far-left, even by Democrat Party standards. These scholars are probably more sympathetic to the Palestinians than they are to Israel.

Let's not let these 100 academics distract from how much support there is from what President Trump did. Just earlier this year, the U.S. Senate unanimously called on Trump to move the embassy: [28] Even Chuck Schumer wanted this, and he wanted Trump to declare Jerusalem as "undivided," as I mentioned above. The Zionist Organization of America is the oldest pro-Israel organization in the U.S., and it also supported the decision. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:32, 8 December 2017 (EST)

Maybe I'm the only one who missed this little tidbit, but apparently since the The Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995, presidents have been actively delaying the project, by issuing 6-month wavers. It is only now that Trump has again issued a waver, but ordered the project to begin. Presumably, this will be the last waver. [29] --David B(TALK) 12:36, 9 December 2017 (EST)

Please unlock

Hi, would you please unlock the following pages, so I can finish up some category clean-up?

To summarize the story, 529 plans are college savings plans. Parents can put money aside to help their kids pay for college, and get tax advantages (Most states exempt money put into a 529 plan from income taxes, for instance. The tax bill, if it passes, will let the money be used for private elementary or secondary school tuition and homeschooling expenses. I haven't seen this part of the bill get a lot of attention in the media, and since Conservapedia was started as an encyclopedia for homeschoolers, and a lot of the users still homeschooler or are or were homeschoolers, thought that this might be worth including.--Whizkid (talk) 12:52, 18 December 2017 (EST)

For the record, not all homeschoolers support the bill, out of fear that it could lead to greater federal interference in homeschooling: [30] --1990'sguy (talk) 16:54, 18 December 2017 (EST)

Americans say Merry Christmas

According to this poll, Americans, whether they support or oppose Trump, prefer the term "Merry Christmas" over "Happy Holidays" (though the proportion for Trump supporters is higher than anti-Trump people).[31] This might be something we could add to Mainpageright. --1990'sguy (talk) 10:15, 25 December 2017 (EST)

Yet more unlock requests

Hi Andy,
I'm working on some more category capitalization correction, but have a few protected images in the way of progress. There is no hurry, but at some point would you please unlock the following images to I can fix their category references?

So I see, thank you both! I'm done with these pages now, so they can all be protected again, if needed. --David B(TALK) 16:31, 11 January 2018 (EST)

Bad DACA bill

The "bipartisan" (aka. uniparty) DACA bill only provides for 10% of the wall and a 3% cut to chain migration: [32] This may be something to add to MPR, though it's obviously up to you. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:32, 11 January 2018 (EST)

That is just terrible. If Trump approves that, I will be very disappointed. It's not surprising that a sellout like Lindsey Graham would help write something like this. --David B(TALK) 22:35, 11 January 2018 (EST)

Also, on a slightly related topic, Tucker Carlson makes a very good point on Trump's s***hole comment: [33] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:39, 11 January 2018 (EST)

Thanks for the very interesting points. Looks like others want to post about other topics so we'll see what tomorrow brings on the above issues.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 00:05, 12 January 2018 (EST)

Would you please unprotect the Joe Arpaio article so I can update it? --1990'sguy (talk) 10:15, 12 January 2018 (EST)

Protected edit request

Andy, would you please add{{See also|Liberal hypocrisy}} to the top of the protected Double standard article or at least add the link to "Liberal hypocrisy" to the former article's "See also" section at the bottom? I don't think you need to unprotect the article. --1990'sguy, 22:56, January 14, 2018

Topic for "In The News"

Dear Sir, were you aware that liberal artist Erykah Badu recently praised Adolph Hitler (specifically, his painting ability) in a recent interview this past week? Did you hear any outcry from the liberal media over it? I didn't think so, I only learned about it this morning when it was (briefly) mentioned in my local paper (The Dallas Morning News) within a weekly column. If you can discover more on this topic, I believe it would be a good addition to the "In The News" feature. Quidam65 (talk) 10:24, 28 January 2018 (EST)

I heard something about this, but was unfamiliar with the artist. More information would be welcome.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 11:44, 28 January 2018 (EST)

NYU students react to Trump's state of the union address

Hi Andy, I don't want to distract from the above suggestion, but here is another thing which might be worth posting to MPR. It's up to you, of course.
The open-minded students at another fine state university (NYU) have responded in firm opposition to Trump's state of the union address. Responses ranged from how racist it was, to how outrageous that it was used as a campaign tool. There's only one problem...it hasn't even happened yet. Campus reform interviewed students, and here is a video on their findings: [34] and here is the full page on this: [35] --David B(TALK) 12:53, 29 January 2018 (EST)

Wonderful, posted as suggested. (By the way, NYU is a private university, not a state one.)--Andy Schlafly (talk) 15:02, 29 January 2018 (EST)

Wait, how did I not know that it was private? Huh, Ignorance abounds, I guess. Thanks for letting me know. --David B(TALK) 15:05, 29 January 2018 (EST)

Image copyright

Hello Andy, I would like to upload these two images, but the image licensing is confusing. Does the licensing permit me to upload the images, or not? They apparently are uncontested on the English Wikipedia. Here are the images: [36][37]--1990'sguy (talk) 14:09, 30 January 2018 (EST)

Are you ready for some football? Half of all Americans are not

Andy, I wasn't sure if you saw the latest NBC/WSJ poll that said that 51% of Americans "don't follow football closely", up nine points in the past four years. Also, 48% of Americans said that if they had a child who wanted to play football, they'd encourage them to play another sport instead, which is up 8 points from 4 years ago. Here's an article about the poll, with a link to the actual poll in the article.

MPR typo

Hi,
There is a typo in the "MPR" news section. I mentioned in on the talk page, but I guess it got lost in the noise. Several entries down, there is one which starts "Why did the Dems boo and his at Donald Trump...", but "his" should be "hiss". It might be a little late to fix it now, but perhaps it is better late than never. --David B(TALK) 12:47, 5 February 2018 (EST)

Inconsistency between In the News and Unplug the NFL articles

On the In the News article it says that all the Philadelphia Eagles players stood for the anthem the entire season. However, on the Unplug the NFL entry it mentions the Eagles as a team that had at least one player protesting the anthem this year (and that had a reference). They can't both be right, and I don't know which one is, so please research and fix the error. Thank you. Quidam65 (talk) 20:51, 7 February 2018 (EST)

One fact is certain: Global warming is becoming a real, dramatic problem in a few places, most of all on Mars, where the temperatures have been skyrocketing for years. This must be due to all of the martians driving SUVs and using aerosols.... --David B(TALK) 15:46, 8 February 2018 (EST)

Listened to Senator Rand Paul last night

For a few hours, at least. The voice of one crying in the wilderness.

Based on the speeches I heard I have not one area of disagreement. And as a FedGov employee (your friendly DoD civilian leech at "work") I'm affected by these things (especially as a supervisor since I have to send out early morning messages as to what my team should do). The House did its job and passed all 12 appropriations bills (argue as you will their content, but at least they did their job)--the Senate has yet to take up one. Quidam65 (talk) 09:20, 9 February 2018 (EST)

I've also worked for the government, in the past. Not sure I would say that the "House did its job" by continuing its reckless deficit spending. But I appreciate your insights!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 11:43, 9 February 2018 (EST)

Maybe not how we would do things if we were there, but at least they sent something over. If the Senate were really that concerned about deficit spending they could amend the bills then discuss in conference. Quidam65 (talk) 08:27, 15 February 2018 (EST)

I made the changes/fixes -- you can lock the template again. Thanks! --1990'sguy (talk) 11:09, 14 February 2018 (EST)

Thanks for edit on Young Mass Murderers

I wasn't able to find anything on the block you completed (because, of course, the lamestream media has their agenda to push--in this case their hatred of military officer training). Quidam65 (talk) 08:30, 15 February 2018 (EST)

Request to unlock Deism page

This page has been locked for nearly a decade now. At least one other person has requested an unlock there in order to add some references and clear "citation needed" tags. Plus it needs some format cleanup. Quidam65 (talk) 08:30, 15 February 2018 (EST)

Error in In The News

It's a grammatical one, don't worry. "That, despite the fact that The Shape of Water was the the highest-grossing Best Picture winner in five years." You have the word "the" inadvertently repeated. Quidam65 (talk) 21:36, 5 March 2018 (EST)

Great catch. The error actually came from the quote/link. It is corrected now. Appreciate it.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 00:13, 6 March 2018 (EST)

Comment on Peyton Manning Article

Good way to tell only part of the story. The article says that Papa John's sold their stake in the joint venture as well. I know you dislike Peyton (maybe seeing him on every Sunday NFL commercial wore you out) but at least tell the WHOLE story. Quidam65 (talk) 21:25, 7 March 2018 (EST)

Appreciate the feedback, but I don't watch NFL football so I don't see Manning's ads. He's been criticized on this site as overhyped by the liberal media for a long time. I infer from the article that Papa John's sold their stake because Manning bailed out. He's always been weakest when needed most, and he shouldn't have allowed himself to be used as part of the NFL's scheme to push Tim Tebow out.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 15:21, 8 March 2018 (EST)

Is this accurate?

Your statement is a reasonable one, although I would emphasize we remove liberal bias rather than have a POV of our own. I did promote your account to skip Captcha. Stick around!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:44, 20 March 2018 (EDT)

You should really ask Panera Bread about that instead of us. After all, Panera Bread made it official back in 2014 that no guns were allowed on the premises. Surely, the gunman in this incident was aware of that policy[38]. Karajou (talk) 21:46, 20 March 2018 (EDT)

Greg, always good to hear from you. I guess this incident had nothing to do with the school, unless the perpetrator was a student. The school is on spring break.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:36, 20 March 2018 (EDT)

There was also in the news a Maryland high school shooting in which two students were wounded before the shooter was shot and killed by armed security. The liberal media will barely touch both because it goes against their agenda, and part of that agenda was to make both school and Panera "gun free zones", as if they believe the bad guys can read and heed. Karajou (talk) 01:42, 21 March 2018 (EDT)

Username change.

Hello, would it possible to change my name from my current one to a new one called Winston Smith? Thanks.

How about a change to WinstonSm? Full names are disfavored without verification. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 17:14, 21 March 2018 (EDT)

I'm highly suspicious that either supposed name given by this user is the user's real name, especially since these are well known literary characters. GregG (talk) 18:02, 21 March 2018 (EDT)

Either way, the user that wrote the request created that account only a few hours ago and only made two edits, both of them being requests to change the username. It's ridiculous to create a new account and immediately ask for a name change without doing anything else. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:39, 21 March 2018 (EDT)

New Essay

I'd like to see this essay get some promotion and contributors. You may think it's redundant in light of the other "Greatest Conservative..." essays on this site. But like the description says, it's not only meant to highlight great conservative media, but also how much that conservative media gets an undeserved negative reputation since most critics are liberal. I've been dismayed by the underwhelming and lackluster response my other essay got:

MPR request (2)

Hello Andy, would you please add a link to Sadiq Khan (London's mayor) to the MPR blurb about London's murder rate? Khan is a left-wing Fabian Socialist, and his politically correct policies (as I showed in his article) have directly led to the increasing murder rate in London. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:45, 7 April 2018 (EDT)

A Question for Mr. Schlafly

Dear Mr. Schlafly,
I find your site fascinating. One question I have -- and I pose it not in the spirit of argumentation / beginning an argument, but rather to receive an explanation from your point of view. Much of the material in the gospels could be interpreted as Christ urging people to take care of the poor. There are moments in the New Testament during which Christ suggests that accumulated wealth on earth will not be favorably looked upon in the next life (Matt. 19); during which Christ tells his disciples to sell their possessions and give all they have to the poor (Matt. 19); and so forth. Also, in Acts 4, it is suggested that Christ's apostles share possessions in common, and to a certain degree one might interpret that the failure to do so could have negative consequences (Acts 5: 1-5). In any event, I would very much appreciate reading your thoughts on this matter, if you have the opportunity to respond.
Thank you very much for your time,
D. C. User:Questions, 17:41, 8 April 2018

Very important news story for 2018

Andy, please see my post on the main talk page. The Hungarian election that just happened is one of the most important events of this year -- Viktor Orbán is the face of Europe conservatives who are fighting for national sovereignty and less immigration, and he won a massive victory, exceeding even his own party's expectations -- and literally the only issues he focused on were immigration and national sovereignty. This is a big victory for conservatives both in the U.S. and Europe, and a big defeat for globalism and the EU.

Orbán was the only European leader to endorse Trump in 2016, and the year before that, he built a wall on Hungary's southern border which cut illegal immigration by over 99%. This story should be added to MPR -- if we're going to add multiple stories in a row about minor events in the UK, we definitely should add the most important victory for conservatives in Europe this year. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:34, 8 April 2018 (EDT)

Another unlock request

Hello, not to distract from the above posts, but when you get a chance, would you please unlock Famous American writers, so I can edit change the category? Thank you! --David B(TALK) 09:43, 9 April 2018 (EDT)

In addition to DavidB4's request right above, please unlock the page Sonia Sotomayor, so I can fix the categories there. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:35, 9 April 2018 (EDT)

Thanks for unlocking those!

There are also some pages which should be deleted at some point, as general maintenance, but are protected. Would you please either delete them yourself, or unlock them so I can do this?

When you get a chance, would you also please unlock Template:Move? I would like to add a line break to it so that when people use the tag, the template's message is placed on its own line rather than crashing into the page content. Thank you! --David B(TALK) 10:33, 25 April 2018 (EDT)

Thank you, I'm finished with it, so it can be protected again. --David B(TALK) 21:39, 30 April 2018 (EDT)

Image question

Hello Andy, I want to upload this official photo of TX Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick. However, the link says "all rights reserved" on the right-hand side. I tried contacting his Lt. Gov. office (multiple times) as well as his campaign, but I received no response. Is there any way that I would be able to upload the image, or is there nothing I can do about it? --1990'sguy (talk) 00:47, 28 April 2018 (EDT)

I'll look into this further and be back in touch. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 08:28, 28 April 2018 (EDT)

Have you been able to look further into this image yet? --1990'sguy (talk) 22:43, 19 May 2018 (EDT)

Yes, I did look into it, and found that Texas asserts a copyright in its State photos. Since they like to say "Don't Mess with Texas," I don't think we should use it unless you can get permission. However, I think Dan Patrick would agree with much that is on this site, and don't think he'd mind at all.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 01:04, 20 May 2018 (EDT)

OK. As I said, I tried contacting him through various means (official website, campaign website, Facebook), but I got no response. Do you know of any other way to contact him? --1990'sguy (talk) 13:27, 20 May 2018 (EDT)

The photo is probably owned by the State of Texas, not Dan Patrick.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 15:38, 20 May 2018 (EDT)

Then who should I contact, if any? --1990'sguy (talk) 00:38, 21 May 2018 (EDT)

There must be a Texas state governmental office that handles requests like this. Offhand, I don't know what its contact info is, but I'll look.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 00:55, 21 May 2018 (EDT)

Please unlock File:DC2.jpg

Hello again,
Would you please unlock File:DC2.jpg so we can remove a duplicate category it currently resides in? Thanks! --David B(TALK) 17:42, 1 May 2018 (EDT)

Thank you! I've actually renamed it, too, since the upload policy is to have meaningful image names. It is now named "File:Washington DC 2009.jpg" and can be protected again. --David B(TALK) 12:57, 2 May 2018 (EDT)

A few more unlock requests - 5/7/18

Hi, I seem to be pestering you with a lot of these lately, but when you get the chance, would you please unlock the following pages so I can do come category correction? Thanks!

Potential MPR entry

Italy is experiencing a major setback to the EU and globalism -- two populist, Euroskeptic, anti-establishment parties (one of which is the strongly conservative Lega Nord) just agreed to create a coalition government: [39] This would be the first government in Western Europe composed entirely by conservative-nationalist-populists, rather than such a party having to rely on a globalist establishment party to be in the government. Also, the conservative Lega Nord influenced the coalition agenda the most: [40] This coalition government is not completely assured yet, since their parties' regular members along with Italy's establishment president have to give their approval, but it's definitely good news and should go on MPR. I read several other sources essentially saying it was the biggest populist victory since Brexit. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:15, 18 May 2018 (EDT)

This is wonderful. Should we wait until the coalition government is formed before announcing the good news?--Andy Schlafly (talk) 01:09, 19 May 2018 (EDT)

That would be a good idea. If the establishment fails to take it down, it will probably happen on Monday or Tuesday. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:25, 19 May 2018 (EDT)

It took a bit longer than expected, but this government coalition was just finalized and approved: [41][42] This is the first 100% Euroskeptic/populist/anti-establishment government in Western Europe and undoubtedly the biggest conservative victory on the continent since Brexit (and a clear setback to globalism and the establishment), so I think it definitely should be added. Also, Matteo Salvini, who literally has the exact same political views as Donald Trump (and who met at a 2016 rally) will have fully control over the Italian ministry in charge of immigration. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:49, 31 May 2018 (EDT)

Just as an especially heartening sidenote, Italy's minister overseeing Italy's policies related to family and disabilities, Lorenzo Fontana, is very conservative on social issues, being pro-life, both on the issue of birth/abortion and death/euthanasia, in addition to opposing homosexual "marriage" and other similar positions: [43][44] (and notice how CNN describes him and his positions -- with that kind of description, it's clear he's the right guy for the job). --1990'sguy (talk) 20:58, 1 June 2018 (EDT)

more image unlock requests (civil war battles, etc.)

Hello again,
Sorry to keep bothering you with these, but when you get the chance would you please unlock the following images? For most of these, I only want to adjust the categories for uniformity purposes.

Removing Vandalism

I first made my account so that I could remove vandalism, But what I wish I really could do is hide the vandalism from the revisions page. Is that something only admins can ever do? Shobson20 (talk) 22:18, 5 June 2018 (EDT)

Would you please unprotect the United States of America article? It was protected last year because of a single liberal POV-pusher, but it should now be unprotected so we can edit. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:56, 1 August 2018 (EDT)

Thomas Hardiman

Hello Andy, I noted the MPR post on Amul Thapar, but what do you think of Thomas Hardiman, one of the potential nominees on Trump's list? Personally, I'm a bit concerned about him since according to this article, he is almost as liberal as Kennedy (though I haven't taken the time yet to research the criteria this source used). --1990'sguy (talk) 20:39, 28 June 2018 (EDT)

I think Hardiman would have been better than Gorsuch, and would not have blocked the authority of Trump to deport illegal aliens who commit certain crimes as Gorsuch did. But I don't think Hardiman is particularly conservative either. Trump could pick someone better at this point. Thanks for asking.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 22:00, 28 June 2018 (EDT)

By the way, I read in this article that Thapar "has been lobbying hard for this. He’s speaking at a million Federalist Society events, he’s close to [Senate Majority Leader] Mitch McConnell..." If he's trying hard to become a Supreme Court justice, I personally find that potentially worrysome. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:07, 28 June 2018 (EDT)

They all do. I don't support Thapar for this position, but he's no worse than any of the others in angling for this. Gorsuch appeared to write his opinions differently to position himself for a nomination, as mentioned in his entry here.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:11, 28 June 2018 (EDT)

A judge who may possibly be even worse than Thapar or Hardiman might be Raymond Kethledge, as Breitbart reported today: [45] In addition to having clerked for Kennedy, Kethledge's opinions don't show much originalist thinking and his reasoning appears to rely upon emotion (a worrying sign). Do you think this is accurate? --1990'sguy (talk) 23:35, 3 July 2018 (EDT)

That's an excellent article criticizing Kethledge. Breitbart still does superb work. Thanks for alerting us to it. The article cites the same case (Tyler) that we've had in our entry here about Kethledge, Trump Supreme Court.

This seems like a decent article evaluating the stances of Trump's potential nominees on abortion (and I saw that you're mentioned in it once): [46] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:45, 5 July 2018 (EDT)

Keep or delete?

Hello Andy, should this article be kept or deleted: Suzanna Danuta Walters? It's about some left-wing university professor who hasn't received much coverage at all other than writing one op-ed on WaPo and receiving some pushback for it (and the most notable person cited criticizing her is Ben Shapiro). --1990'sguy (talk) 07:52, 4 July 2018 (EDT)

Putin edit

While he might be a better choice compared to the EU by any stretch (which isn't saying much), I'm not sure we should call Putin a Christian or even a Conservative/Rightist. Just because he's against the homosexual agenda doesn't mean he's conservative by any stretch. Technically, Stalin ALSO was against the homosexual agenda as well (why do you THINK the Gulags often threw homosexuals in there?), but he was very far to the left, and most certainly was anti-Christian. Same goes for Che Guevara, who also had homosexuals thrown into work camps and was very much anti-homosexual, and he's very left-wing. And as far as how it relates to Putin, let me point out a few stuff about Putin's actions, like him claiming in a Larry King interview that he believes in "the power of people", which indicates that he adheres to a more humanist view of things (and ironically is also something Lenin himself said). Not to mention his outright comparing Communism to Christianity despite the fact that they are LITERALLY incomparable. And I'm pretty sure funneling funds to explicitly communist countries such as Angola, not to mention explicitly desiring to reconnect with the communist FSLN group and North Korea, and giving a speech at the 19th World Festival of Youth and Student Communists that voiced support for the Communists would be a very big detractor from being conservative and Christian by any stretch. Had I been in his position, speaking as a Christian and conservative myself, I wouldn't DARE try to compare Communism to Christianity, and I certainly wouldn't speak fondly of Communism at all or aid it in ANY way. Quite the opposite, I'd go out of my way to demonize the Communists and even go as far as to wipe them out, while making SURE the Russian education system makes CLEAR what Communism has done in terms of damage. And just helming the ROC isn't really evidence to him being a Christian. So did Stalin during World War II, and he's an unrepentant atheist (and besides, the domestic version of the Russian Orthodox Church is unfortunately being helmed by unrepentant KGB agents right now, so it's basically an arm of the KGB Soviet apparatus). Pokeria1 (talk) 09:25, 16 July 2018 (EDT)

Okay, I'll give you that bit about pro-life (though then again, technically you could call Harry Reid a pro-lifer for running on a pro-life platform only for him to cast it aside after being reelected, so I'm not too sure about that.), and I'll agree with you that liberals hate some of the social issues he supports (though that doesn't mean they hate him necessarily. Let's not forget, even Sartre, someone who is as far left as one can possibly get, criticized Che Guevara for his persecution of homosexuals, even comparing the latter to being the Jewish people under the Nazis in a rather tasteless manner, and he's the guy responsible for practically deifying him with his "most complete human being of the century" moniker.), but I'm still not sure. My idea is, if he's not fighting against Communism or doing anything to wipe it from the face of the earth, he's for it and an enemy, especially considering what the Communists did to us Christians. Let me put it another way, he would have had the Karl Marx statue on Moscow Square torn down, demonized Stalin, Lenin, and Communism as a whole, basically tried to take Communism down like Ronald Reagan did. I want Communism completely DEAD, speaking as a conservative and a Christian, especially of the latter stripe, knowing WHAT Communism entailed to us. Besides, have you even read the articles? It already makes VERY clear he supports Communism completely. When you get right down to it, he's as "good" for Russia as Angela Merkel is for Germany. Pokeria1 (talk) 11:25, 16 July 2018 (EDT)

Russian national identity was burried under Soviet multiculturalism. Russian citizenship did not exist from 1919 until 1992; to the extent any form of citizenship existed at all, it was only among CPSU members who held Soviet citenship. Soviet citizens held privileges above the law and ordinary plebs, similiar to the special status of Hillary Clinton. When the Soviet Union fell and power of the leftist-controlled civil service was broken, equality between Russian nationals and left-wing ideological bureaucrats was established.

I'm not certain you can generally say Democrats were ever pro-Russian; Democrats always stood for knocking down borders, particularly between Russia and Ukraine.RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 11:52, 2 August 2018 (EDT)

Dear Andy, why are you guys so angry and resentful towards me? Sir, I respect you. I have never EVER called you stupid or anything like that. Can we have a discussion about my block, sir? You tolerate people more obnoxious than me, you give more generous blocks to worse transgressors. Can we have a civil discussion about my block. I am ready for a compromise. Topic ban, edit limit? I have proven that I can contribute quality articles. At the least, I can add to medical articles... No POV bias there! I know you are angry with me, but can we have a civil, normal discussion. Without referring to me as stupid. I have NEVER DONE THAT with anyone on here. EVER! I have shown respect to EVERYONE here. Can we, please discuss this. Again, sincerely, and respectfully. -J --Emperor Charlemagne (talk) 23:58, 22 July 2018 (EDT)

I am a sincere person who wants to be forgiven, what can I do? What should I do? Help me. I am LOST! Don't just be quiet. I KNOW you can read this. Can you offer ANY ADVISE? Any insight would be more than appreciated! --Octavian Augustus (talk) 01:06, 25 July 2018 (EDT)

“Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.” --Octavian Augustus (talk) 01:11, 25 July 2018 (EDT)

Dear Andy, I swear that if you and Conservapedia give me ONE MORE CHANCE, I will in NO WAY squander it and will use it wisely. I will contribute so much. I can GREATLY improve history articles and can also add a little to medical articles. If you were to only reconsider this a bit, it would bring me immense joy. Please, show that you are a REAL conservative Christian man, who is willing to forgive those who sin but regret! I respect you SO MUCH. I honestly have 3 or 4 printed images of you. NO JOKING! --JuliusCaesar (talk) 01:43, 25 July 2018 (EDT)

Languages, Version and SI system

Hey, is there any plans to make CP in more languages to spread the word?
I noticed that the MediaWiki version is over 3 years old, is it possible to update it?
Is it possible in country pages infoboxes to have both sq mi and sq km?
-Karjalainen

We plan to stick with American English for a while, but thanks for the suggestion! American distance units, too.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:02, 1 August 2018 (EDT)

DavidB4 shared this link as far as getting the Conservapedia favicon to show up

It shows the favicon in my tab. So it works for me. Are you having trouble?--Andy Schlafly (talk) 22:00, 5 August 2018 (EDT)

I regularly use Google Chrome, and I only see the favicon during those internal errors. When the site is working fine (99% of the time), there's no favicon. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:08, 5 August 2018 (EDT)

I've tried it on a slightly modded version of Google chrome I sometimes use, and found the same problem. However, when I use the browsers Opera and Vivaldi, both of which are now Chromium based (but significantly edited), it shows fine. I can experiment with this further, later on. I'll try to find the time to spin up some VMs later, and try it on those. Those will offer a clean slate, so to speak, and therefor more pure results. --David B(TALK) 23:11, 5 August 2018 (EDT)